DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 21-35 have been examined in this application. This communication is a final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 1/26/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “wherein the water flow rate is defined as time required to replace 100% of the water in the aquaculture tank” fails to comply with the written description requirement because it is not discussed in the applicant’s disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “wherein a ratio of the biomass density to a water flow rate in the aquaculture tank is in the range of 20 to 150” renders the claim indefinite because density and flow rate are completely different types of measurements, not to mention both density and flow rate can have a variety of different units of measurements. It is therefore unclear how a ratio is calculated between the two. Furthermore, the specification does not clarify this issue, as page 11, lines 29-32 states “The desired ration (sp?) between the biomass density to the amount of water processed through water treatment ranges from 20 minutes to 150 minutes”, and it is unclear how a ratio between biomass density and water flow rate can be in minutes. Since the examiner is unable to determine how this ratio is determined, this claim has not been further treated on its merits.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “wherein the water flow rate is defined as time required to replace 100% of the water in the aquaculture tank” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how flow rate, which is typically measured by volume over time, can be defined simply by a time measurement. Furthermore, since claim 35 is dependent on claim 35, it is even more unclear how a ratio between biomass density to water flow rate is calculated if water flow rate is defined as a time measurement. Since the examiner is unable to determine how this flow rate is defined, this claim has not been further treated on its merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-33 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2010/0236137 by Wu in view of WO2012140183A1 by Wardum.
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses a process of maintaining a concentration of dissolved gas CO2 in the range of about 0.5 mg/l to about 50 mg/l (Paragraph 99 discloses “The fish enclosures of the embodiments can operate within the following non-limiting, exemplary water quality limits: …less than 10gl/L CO2”) in an aquaculture tank of an aquaculture system (fish enclosure 220), wherein the aquaculture tank comprises an amount of CO2-producing aquatic organism (fish 221); the process comprising adjusting the level of carbonate alkalinity in the system water in the aquaculture tank of the aquaculture system to the level in the range of 150mg/l to 5000mg/l (paragraph 99 discloses “The fish enclosures of the embodiments can operate within the following non-limiting, exemplary water quality limits: …alkalinity at 10-400 mg/L CaCO3”) to increase the proportion of CO2 that chemically reacts with the system water (this is an inherent effect of increasing the alkalinity of the water), wherein adjusting the level of carbonate alkalinity in the system water comprises adding an alkalinity adjusting agent into the system water in the aquaculture tank (paragraph 146 discloses “pH is controlled by bubbling or sparging CO2 into the ponds, or adding weak acids (e.g., carbonic acid), bases, or buffers (sodium bicarbonate)”).
Wu does not disclose the aquaculture system is configured to remove CO2 from a system water in the aquaculture tank by degassing or stripping. However, this limitation is taught by Wardum. Page 55, lines 13-16 discloses “A stripping gas, in particular air, is injected into the fish tank in form of fine bubbles. The air bubbles act to strip carbon dioxide from the water as they rise to the surface of the water body and allow carbon dioxide to escape to the atmosphere or to withdraw the carbon dioxide”. Wardum suggests that “As a consequence of the extensive respiration of fish and bacteria in recirculation aquaculture systems, the CO2 concentration in the water will increase if it is not reduced at an equal rate. An increased CO2 concentration in the water has negative effects on the fish growth rate and might even increase fish mortality. Therefore, in intensive aquaculture it is necessary to reduce the CO2 concentration in the water”. It would thus be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu using the teachings from Wardum in order to provide additional control over the CO2 concentration in the water.
Regarding claims 22 (dependent on claim 21), 29 (dependent on claim 28), Wu discloses the alkalinity adjusting agent is selected from the group consisting of sodium bicarbonate, sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, calcium hydroxide, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, dolomite magnesium hydroxide, and magnesium carbonate. Paragraph 146 discloses sodium bicarbonate as a buffer and paragraph 134 discloses additional additive options such as calcium carbonate.
Regarding claims 23 (dependent on claim 21), 24 (dependent on claim 21), 30 (dependent on claim 28), 31 (dependent on claim 28), Wu discloses the level of carbonate alkalinity is adjusted to the level in the range of 250mg/l to 1000mg/l or 500mg/l to 1000mg/l. Paragraph 99 discloses “The fish enclosures of the embodiments can operate within the following non-limiting, exemplary water quality limits: …alkalinity at 10-400 mg/L CaCO3”.
Regarding claims 25 (dependent on claim 21), 33 (dependent on claim 28), Wu does not disclose the amount of the CO2-producing aquatic organism in the aquaculture tank is from 5 kg/in3 to 700 kg/in3. However, having disclosed fish 221 in fish enclosure 220, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to find the optimal amount of fish to maximize production while providing an adequate environment, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 26 (dependent on claim 21), 15 (dependent on claim 12), Wu discloses the aquatic organism is selected from the group consisting of freshwater finfish, marine fish, estuarine fish, echinoderms, crustaceans, and mollusks. Paragraphs 81-89 list a variety of fish that can be raised, as well as mollusks and crustaceans.
Regarding claim 27 (dependent on claim 21), Wardum further teaches the degassing or stripping is selected from the group consisting of pumping diffused air into the water. Page 55, lines 13-16 discloses “A stripping gas, in particular air, is injected into the fish tank in form of fine bubbles. The air bubbles act to strip carbon dioxide from the water as they rise to the surface of the water body and allow carbon dioxide to escape to the atmosphere or to withdraw the carbon dioxide”.
Regarding claim 28 (dependent on claim 21), Wardum further teaches a method of aquaculture in a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) (page 1, lines 8-9 disclose “The invention further relates to a recirculation aquaculture system comprising a fish tank”), wherein the recirculating aquaculture system comprises CO2-producing aquatic organism, the method comprising maintaining concentration of dissolved gas CO2 in the range of about 0.5 mg/l to about 50 mg/l in an aquaculture tank of the recirculating aquaculture system according to the process of claim 21 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
29. (New) The method of claim 28, wherein the alkalinity adjusting agent is selected from the group consisting of sodium bicarbonate, sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, calcium hydroxide, calcium oxide, calcium carbonate, dolomite magnesium hydroxide, and magnesium carbonate.
Regarding claim 32 (dependent on claim 28), Wardum further teaches additionally comprising a step of degassing or stripping, selected from the group consisting of pumping diffused air into the water. Page 55, lines 13-16 discloses “A stripping gas, in particular air, is injected into the fish tank in form of fine bubbles. The air bubbles act to strip carbon dioxide from the water as they rise to the surface of the water body and allow carbon dioxide to escape to the atmosphere or to withdraw the carbon dioxide”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding maintaining a concentration of dissolved gas CO2 in the specific range of about 0.5mg/L to about 50mg/L, paragraph 99 discloses a variety of concentrations of CO2, including less than 10ml/L CO2, which is in the range of 0.5mg/L to about 50mg/L.
Applicant’s arguments regarding removing CO2 from the system by degassing or stripping are moot in view of the current grounds of rejection.
Regarding adjusting carbonate alkalinity in the recited range specifically to increase the proportion of CO2 that chemically reacts with the system water, paragraph 99 of Wu discloses maintaining alkalinity at 10-400ml/L CaCO3, which falls within the recited range, and higher alkalinity environments neutralize more of the carbonic acid that is produced when CO2 dissolves in water, which causes the water to draw in more CO2 to react with the water, thereby increasing the proportion of CO2 that chemically reacts with the water.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights